I suppose it's no mystery to anyone who has already dived into this thread that most of the options in the poll aren't fact-based, and thus can't logically be False.

I'd like to point out, also, that I don't think government healthcare is a right in any country. Maybe there's one, but I doubt it. It's a privilege in all these countries. In the United States, for example, the rights are listed in the bill of rights and subsequent amendments. Everything else is a privilege. Most developed countries actually have much less-developed bills of rights than we have.

Of the canadians I know 1/3 like the healthcare, 1/3 are ambivalent, and 1/3 hate it. So go figure.

Nonetheless, big pharma probably is the new military-industrial complex. But I really don't see how socialized healthcare is going to stop big pharma. It seems more likely to actually expand big pharma, because socialized healthcare generally discourages users from seeking non-mainstream care.

I've just come back from Europe, where citizens in most countries (on the left, right and center) would revolt if their leaders dared to privatize their health-care systems. That's because they've grown accustomed to getting shoddy care rationed out by bureaucrats, opponents of health-care reform in the United States insist. In fact, it's because citizens in countries such as France, Germany, Finland and the United Kingdom all of which boast lower infant-mortality and higher life-expectancy rates than the United States don't think of health-care as a commodity. They think of it as a public good and a basic right.

Might Americans come to think of it this way? Not a chance, skeptics watching the fury unleashed at town hall meetings in recent weeks might contend. Americans think owning guns, not having access to medical care, is a basic right. But this conclusion isn't warranted. President Obama actually said it plainly enough during the presidential campaign, telling Tom Brokaw in an exchange on health-care with John McCain, "I think it should be a right, for every American. In a country as wealthy as ours, for us to have people who are going bankrupt because they can't pay their medical bills there's something fundamentally wrong about that."

Fundamentally wrong. A right for every American. If Obama intends to pass meaningful health-care reform, he needs to remember these words and begin reminding Americans that reforming health-care isn't important simply because it will cut waste and improve the quality of care, points he emphasizes in an op-ed in today's Times. It's important because denying medical care to citizens who can't afford it in one of the world's wealthiest countries is unfair and unconscionable: because health-care is not simply a commodity but a right.

From The Nation

I guess what will be your argument now? Oh The Nation and the 100s of news outlets saying the same thing (like NPR yesterday) and other many books being written on the subject are all telling a LIE and your Fox News is the only "media outlet" with factual information??

I'd like to point out, also, that I don't think government healthcare is a right in any country. Maybe there's one, but I doubt it. It's a privilege in all these countries. In the United States, for example, the rights are listed in the bill of rights and subsequent amendments. Everything else is a privilege. Most developed countries actually have much less-developed bills of rights than we have.

They perhaps you should read more. Here is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 25, section 1, which the Unites States has adopted in its entirety:

Quote:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

I don't believe that just because some one or some country or some document claims it to be makes it so.

I would love to see a logical disposition of this question complete with consistent reconciliation with other rights.

This is not "some document" is it the universal declaration which, BTW, has a greater influence on the world than the US constitution. And just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it is not true. Healthcare is treated as a right in almost all of Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zeland, Canada, and even some third world nations such as Colombia, Mexico, Peru and many others. In first-world countries with universal healthcare rights infant mortality rates are lower than in the US, life expectancy is higher than in the US and nobody is left uninsured. Oh and BTW they spend less than half what we spend.

How can that be true? Ask all the rich doctors and health insurance CEOs. To them it is the deal of their lifetimes. In the meanwhile, YOU are getting screwed right, left and center and you are defending this lunacy just because it is the democrats who are pushing for it. You are not really thinking in depth about the issue at hand, you are merely following the knee-jerk reaction of people with no morals and seeking to get reelected.

This is not "some document" is it the universal declaration which, BTW, has a greater influence on the world than the US constitution.

Whoop-di-do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tauron

And just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it is not true.

I haven't made such a claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tauron

Healthcare is treated as a right in almost all of Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zeland, Canada, and even some third world nations such as Colombia, Mexico, Peru and many others.

So? That doesn't mean it actually is a right. This is a fundamental and base philosophical question with important consequences. I'd like some explanation of the logical underpinnings of this "right" claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tauron

You are not really thinking in depth about the issue at hand, you are merely following the knee-jerk reaction of people with no morals and seeking to get reelected.

So? That doesn't mean it actually is a right. This is a fundamental and base philosophical question with important consequences. I'd like some explanation of the logical underpinnings of this "right" claim.

Is life a right?
If yes, is a healthy life a right?
If no, is killing someone a right?

If health is not a right than it must be something else like a duty or an individual responsibility or do you believe it is irrelevant to society in general?
We should not consider health as a factor in the well being of a society at all?

Is life a right?
If yes, is a healthy life a right?
If no, is killing someone a right?

Yes.
No. At least I don't believe so, and I haven't seen anything to convince me otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stinkbug

If health is not a right than it must be something else like a duty or an individual responsibility or do you believe it is irrelevant to society in general?

Personally, I would say that "individual responsibility" is probably the best description. So your health is your individual responsibility.

Now, you should be free to (and not prohibited from) obtain health care services through free and voluntary exchanges, but you should not be able to demand health care services from someone else or force someone to provide them for you. Anyone should also be free to provide health care services (free of charge or in exchange for something).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stinkbug

We should not consider health as a factor in the well being of a society at all?

I think this is a separate question and not necessarily relevant to the individual "rights" question. Part of what needs to be dealt with in your question is what is "society". May consider "society" to be an entity unto itself. I don't believe it is. I believe it's just a word we use to describe a given collection of individuals who happen to have collaboration amongst themselves and may have some common traits or circumstances.

Nice try Stinkbug, but I suspect your train of thought will get twisted and spinned to justify that health is a business and that one must pay for it or die.

Health and education are married. If a society no matter how big or small does not educate it's members about health and how to maintain and achieve health, mental and physical, this society will fail. Sick people are less productive.
Hippocrates believed that knowledge of the human body obligates you to make this knowledge available free of charge for the good of your fellow human being.

Private health care versus universal health care should not be a competition. I believe both systems can coexist. As in most European countries if you can afford it you still can get your health care from private doctors and clinics and money will get you plush hospital rooms and all the amenities.

I do believe health care is a right.
If you are born with a disability and are unable to ever work and pay for your own health care, who should provide it, or should you be left to die?

Health and education are married. If a society no matter how big or small does not educate it's members about health and how to maintain and achieve health, mental and physical, this society will fail. Sick people are less productive.
Hippocrates believed that knowledge of the human body obligates you to make this knowledge available free of charge for the good of your fellow human being.

Private health care versus universal health care should not be a competition. I believe both systems can coexist. As in most European countries if you can afford it you still can get your health care from private doctors and clinics and money will get you plush hospital rooms and all the amenities.

I do believe health care is a right.
If you are born with a disability and are unable to ever work and pay for your own health care, who should provide it, or should you be left to die?

I doubt many healthcare right deniers have ever considered this situation or anything in depth for that matter.

I just want to add that in most European countries with universal healthcare plus the private option, the private option typically amounts to no more than 5% of total health expenditures. Also, for real serious health issues, the europeans trust the government run system to take care of them and not the private system.

Personally, I would say that "individual responsibility" is probably the best description. So your health is your individual responsibility.

Now, you should be free to (and not prohibited from) obtain health care services through free and voluntary exchanges, but you should not be able to demand health care services from someone else or force someone to provide them for you. Anyone should also be free to provide health care services (free of charge or in exchange for something).

Point no. 1. Healthcare is not a business. If you get into an accident and break an arm you cannot "go shopping" for the cheapest doctor that will fix your arm for the least $$. If you cannot shop, it is not a business. If it is not a business then it needs to be regulated by the government, just like the government regulates criminals, maintain highways and electricity providers. Right now insurance companies are free to do just about anything, including denying claims which gets people into bankruptcy.

Point no. 2. Healthcare is not optional. To put a very simple example, if your neighbor does not get vaccinated because he is a nut who doesn't "believe" in vaccines, your kid may contract swine flu. In other words, you may think you are a separate individual with responsibility for your own health but the disease does not care what you think, it only cares about how you act. Other noninfectious diseases have some degree of transmission as well. Case in point, obesity. If you don't take care to educate and promote good habits for everyone, but only for those lucky to have insurance, the effectiveness of treatment will be diminished, and by a lot.

Point no. 3. It just makes sense. Like stinkbug said: a sick society will ultimately fail. OK? With the number of uninsured rising over time when will you draw the line? When half of the country cannot get a colonoscopy or breast cancer? Oh don't worry, they make minimum wage so they don't count...

They perhaps you should read more. Here is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 25, section 1, which the Unites States has adopted in its entirety:
mmmkay now?

It's not a right unless it's in the Constitution's Bill of Rights, or subsequent Amendments. I'm not even taking a position on healthcare ... even if it happens, it still will not be a right unless it becomes an amendment later on.

- Freedom of the press is a right
- Owning a gun is a right
- Operating a car is a privilege
- Health care, under Obama's plan, is also a privilege

It's not a right unless it's in the Constitution's Bill of Rights, or subsequent Amendments. I'm not even taking a position on healthcare ... even if it happens, it still will not be a right unless it becomes an amendment later on.

- Freedom of the press is a right
- Owning a gun is a right
- Operating a car is a privilege
- Health care, under Obama's plan, is also a privilege

Driving a car without insurance is punishable.
Living un healthy should also be punishable. Like Tauron wrote, your un-vaccinated neighbor can kill you just as easily by spreading infection than by shooting you in the head with his rightfully owned gun. Shooting you is not his right. Infecting you with small pox (or whatever) shouldn't be his right either. You will die at great cost to you and your family from a disease your neighbor gave you. The shot to the head is much cheaper and the shooter will have to pay your family.

To drive you need to take a test and prove your competence to your fellow citizens. If you apply your little thought experiment, we will need to show a clean bill of health to go to a movie.

I think this is a separate question and not necessarily relevant to the individual "rights" question. Part of what needs to be dealt with in your question is what is "society". May consider "society" to be an entity unto itself. I don't believe it is. I believe it's just a word we use to describe a given collection of individuals who happen to have collaboration amongst themselves and may have some common traits or circumstances.

What do you mean by "is"?

The above question is just as absurd as asking what is "society".

Your definition includes the entire world population plus all living things. We all use chemical reactions to extract energy from bio mass, therefore all living things on this planet are a "society". Yes, we do collaborate even with bacteria and viruses every moment of our lives.

It's not a right unless it's in the Constitution's Bill of Rights, or subsequent Amendments. I'm not even taking a position on healthcare ... even if it happens, it still will not be a right unless it becomes an amendment later on.

- Freedom of the press is a right
- Owning a gun is a right
- Operating a car is a privilege
- Health care, under Obama's plan, is also a privilege

The Federalist papers do not have any guiding influence on any law or policy. It's the independent journal of a former president describing his political philosophies.

As far as them being "rights", they are, up to the point where they're not. The "right" to own a gun can be legally abridged, as can the "freedom of the press". The "right" to life can - and is - subject to the same caveats.

Seems that, as a final analysis, there is only one "right", that being, "might makes right".

Aside from fringe cases, health is what you make of it. Health is maintained by a healthly lifestyle, for the most part, and a healthy lifestyle is a purely voluntary condition. I just don't see how to make health a right, given that so many people will never chose to be healthy. To do so would require some serious, leviathan-esque fascism, which is why no countries make health a right.

Aside from fringe cases, health is what you make of it. Health is maintained by a healthly lifestyle, for the most part, and a healthy lifestyle is a purely voluntary condition. I just don't see how to make health a right, given that so many people will never chose to be healthy. To do so would require some serious, leviathan-esque fascism, which is why no countries make health a right.

If a society decides to pollute their waters their air and their land the individual will most certainly be impacted through health issues. This society also allows food to be polluted with chemicals to ease distribution and improve shelf life. i.e. fresh made mayo last 4 days...!

What I mean by "right to health" is that we should demand to have clean air and clean water as well as food which does not cause trillions in health care cost.

For some reason we exclude ourselves from all responsibility for the health of others because we were brought up to think that the more you can afford to waste, better for business. Profit at all cost has come to home roost.